• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gavin Schmidt's Whining and Denial

Threegoofs said:
Did you forget the example in question a couple posts ago?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have no idea of who you are claiming has made predictions that are precise enough to be useful and got them right on the alarmist side. Do tell me again. You can win all over again!
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, I have no idea of who you are claiming has made predictions that are precise enough to be useful and got them right on the alarmist side. Do tell me again. You can win all over again!
Click to expand...

Record global warmth was predicted 30+ years ago.

We now have it.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Yes, I have no idea of who you are claiming has made predictions that are precise enough to be useful and got them right on the alarmist side. Do tell me again. You can win all over again!
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
Record global warmth was predicted 30+ years ago.

We now have it.
Click to expand...

You can avoid any chance of being wrong by predicting all possible things with a nice wide range of predictions. This makes your predictions useless.

I predict you will be less well in 20 years time do I get to be a doctor now?
 
Threegoofs said:
Record global warmth was predicted 30+ years ago.

We now have it.
Click to expand...

Yes it was, and it was scientifically sound to do so. Still had a chance of not occurring.

1) The science said that radiant energy changes take 81 to 120 years to equalize 70% through the delta forcing/ocean/atmospheric coupling.

2) The atmospheric transparency was the lowest ever, blocking a significant part of the sun from reaching the surface.

3) We had a plan to clear the skies, and it would take decades for these regulation changes to not only fully kick in, decades more for the aerosols to fully clear out of the skies.

4) Radiance from the sun peaked in 1958, though they had no way of knowing this at the time.

These factors come to mind at the moment, I'm sure I'm missing something less significant. In the 70's the EPA implemented policies to clear the skies. Other industrialized nations followed.

5) As the skies clear, more radiant energy reaches the surface of the land and oceans, and we see the earth getting warmer again.

6) More than 75% on radiant energy changes are at a wavelength absorbed down to 100 meters and deeper into the ocean. This energy largely stays in the ocean and takes decades to fully equalize with the atmosphere.

7) though the solar peak in 1958 may be small compared to atmospheric transparency changes, it alone doesn't equalize to 70% of its change until around 2058.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes it was, and it was scientifically sound to do so. Still had a chance of not occurring.

1) The science said that radiant energy changes take 81 to 120 years to equalize 70% through the delta forcing/ocean/atmospheric coupling.

2) The atmospheric transparency was the lowest ever, blocking a significant part of the sun from reaching the surface.

3) We had a plan to clear the skies, and it would take decades for these regulation changes to not only fully kick in, decades more for the aerosols to fully clear out of the skies.

4) Radiance from the sun peaked in 1958, though they had no way of knowing this at the time.

These factors come to mind at the moment, I'm sure I'm missing something less significant. In the 70's the EPA implemented policies to clear the skies. Other industrialized nations followed.

5) As the skies clear, more radiant energy reaches the surface of the land and oceans, and we see the earth getting warmer again.

6) More than 75% on radiant energy changes are at a wavelength absorbed down to 100 meters and deeper into the ocean. This energy largely stays in the ocean and takes decades to fully equalize with the atmosphere.

7) though the solar peak in 1958 may be small compared to atmospheric transparency changes, it alone doesn't equalize to 70% of its change until around 2058.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to find a reference of watts per square meter at the ground over time, but not had a lot of luck.
I was hoping the photo voltaic solar studies would have something, but they mostly discuss current conditions.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You can avoid any chance of being wrong by predicting all possible things with a nice wide range of predictions. This makes your predictions useless.

I predict you will be less well in 20 years time do I get to be a doctor now?
Click to expand...

But all possible things weren't predicted.

Record breaking heat was predicted though.

And they got it right.
 
longview said:
I have been trying to find a reference of watts per square meter at the ground over time, but not had a lot of luck.
I was hoping the photo voltaic solar studies would have something, but they mostly discuss current conditions.
Click to expand...

I've been looking for solar studies at the ground level too. It seems since they launched satellites, they don't care about how much solar actually loses in the atmosphere. Measurements looking at satellite - ground would give those results accurately.

How can they claim to be the experts, if such basic things are not being studied?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I've been looking for solar studies at the ground level too. It seems since they launched satellites, they don't care about how much solar actually loses in the atmosphere. Measurements looking at satellite - ground would give those results accurately.

How can they claim to be the experts, if such basic things are not being studied?
Click to expand...

Of course, if you talked to people in the field, they might have those studies and interact regularly with the investigators.

But you dont talk to people in the field, you search on your computer from your basement and pretend you know important things arent being studied.
 
Threegoofs said:
But all possible things weren't predicted.

Record breaking heat was predicted though.

And they got it right.
Click to expand...

Predicting that it would be warmer is one thing.

Predicting that it would be substancially warmer is another.

I predict that you will be less healthy in 20 years. Do I get to be called a medical expert if I get it right?

Serriously, what impact has the last couple of decades of less than expected (well F.all) warming had on your expectation of the climate in 2100? None at all?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Predicting that it would be warmer is one thing.

Predicting that it would be substancially warmer is another.

I predict that you will be less healthy in 20 years. Do I get to be called a medical expert if I get it right?

Serriously, what impact has the last couple of decades of less than expected (well F.all) warming had on your expectation of the climate in 2100? None at all?
Click to expand...

IPCC has been calling for approximately +0.20C per decade with variability about than mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom